Transpo Feb 15 Assignment.pdf
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Transpo Feb 15 Assignment.pdf as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,404
- Pages: 8
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 1 of 8
*Case: PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, respondents. [G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993.] CHAPTER 2 – OBLIGATION OF THE COMMON CARRIER
1. BASIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE CARRIER
2. DUTY TO ACCEPT GOODS FOR TRANSPORT *Case: 1. F. C. FISHER, plaintiff, vs. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J. S. STANLEY as Acting Collector of Custom of the Philippine Islands, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, as Attorney General of the Philippine Islands, and W. H. BISHOP, as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respondents. [G.R. No. 8095. November 5, 1914 & March 31, 1915.] 2.01 VALID GROUNDS FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE *Cases: 1. F. C. FISHER, plaintiff, vs. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J. S. STANLEY, as Acting Collector of Custom of the Philippine Islands, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, as Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, and W. H. BISHOP, as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respondents. [G.R. No. 8095. November 5, 1914 & March 31, 1915.] 2. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.] 2.02 DUTIES TO SPECIAL CLASSES OF PASSENGERS
3. DUTY TO MAKE TIMELY DELIVERY OF THE GOODS *Case: 1. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.]
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 2 of 8
3.01 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY *Case: 1. MAGELLAN MANUFACTURING MARKETING CORPORATION, * petitioner, vs. COURT OF A PPEALS, ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINES and F.E. ZUELLIG, INC.respondents. [G.R. No. 95529. August 22, 1991.]
4. PLACE OF DELIVERY
5. TO WHOM DELIVERED *Case: 1. JOSE MENDOZA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., defendant appellee. [G.R. No. L-3678. February 29, 1952.]
6. DELAY TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS *Case: 1. TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. RENATO T. ARROYO, respondents. [G.R. No. 118126. March 4, 1996.] 7. DUTY TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE 7.01 CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS 7.02 RATIONALE 7.03 MEANING OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE *Case: 1. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, petitioner, vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respo ndent. [G.R. No. L-18965. October 30, 1964.]
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 3 of 8
7.04 NON-DELEGABLE DUTY *Case: 1. WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. and ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 200289. November 25, 2013.] 7.05 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE *Cases: 1. AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO, substituted by his surviving heirs represented by Dolores P. Gillego, respondent. [G.R. No. 165266. December 15, 2010.] 2. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, respondents. [G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993.] 7.06 EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL 7.07 DURATION OF DUTY IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS *Cases: 1. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.] 2. WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., I NC. and ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 200289. November 25, 2013.] 3. LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION, petitioner-defendant, vs. I. V. BINAMIRA, respondent plaintiff. [G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957.]
7.08 COMMENCEMENT OF DUTY IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS *Case: 1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. [G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003.]
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 4 of 8
7.09 HOW DUTY IS COMPLIED WITH 7.10 DUTY TO THIRD PERSONS *Case: 1. KAPALARAN BUS LINE, petitioner, vs. ANGEL CORONADO, LOPE GRAJERA, DIONISIO SHINYO, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. 85331. August 25, 1989.] 7.11 EFFECT OF STIPULATION ON EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
8. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY SEA 8.01 SEAWORTHINESS *Case: 1. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. SULPICIO LINES, INC., GO SIOC SO, ENRIQUE S. GO, EUSEBIO S. GO, CARLOS S. GO, VICTORIANO S. GO, DOMINADOR S. GO, RICARDO S. GO, EDWARD S. GO, ARTURO S. GO, EDGAR S. GO, EDMUND S. GO, FRANCISCO SORIANO, VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION, TERESITA G. CAÑEZAL AND SOTERA E. CAÑEZAL, respondents. [G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999.]
8.02 MEANING OF SEAWORTHINESS 8.03 CARGOWORTHINESS 8.04 PROPER MANNING *Case: 1. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. SULPICIO LINES, INC., GO SIOC SO, ENRIQUE S. GO, EUSEBIO S. GO, CARLOS S. GO, VICTORIANO S. GO, DOMINADOR S. GO, RICARDO S. GO, EDWARD S. GO, ARTURO S. GO, EDGAR S. GO, EDMUND S. GO, FRANCISCO SORIANO, VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION, TERESITA G. CAÑEZAL AND SOTERA E. CAÑEZAL, respondents. [G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999.]
8.05 ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 5 of 8
8.06 OVERLOADING *Case: 1. NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA, SPS. RICARDO and VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA, respondents. [G.R. No. 110398. November 7, 1997.] 8.07 PROPER STORAGE *Cases: 1. PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 106999. June 20, 1996.] 2. BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V. and JARDINE DAVIES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent. [G.R. No. 143133. June 5, 2002.] 8.08 NEGLIGENCE OF CAPTAIN AND CREW 8.09 RULES ON PASSENGER SAFETY 8.10 DUTY TO TAKE PROPER ROUTE *Case: 1. MAGELLAN MANUFACTURING MARKETING CORPORATION, * petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINES and F.E. ZUELLIG, INC. respondents.[G.R. No. 95529. August 22, 1991.] 8.12 DUTY TO INSPECT IN CARRIAGE BY SEA *Case: 1. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.] 8.13 INSURANCE
9. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY LAND 9.01 ROADWORTHINESS 9.02 TRAFFIC RULES
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 6 of 8
9.03 DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION *Case: 1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. [G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003.] 9.04 DUTY TO INSPECT *Case: 1. HERMINIO L. NOCUM, plaintiffappellee, vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-23733. October 31, 1969.] 9.05 INSURANCE
10. CARRIAGE BY TRAIN 10.01 COMPETENT EMPLOYEES 10.02 THE PLATFORM MUST BE SAFE *Cases: 1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. [G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003.] 2. JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendantappellee. [G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918.] 10.03 MAINTENANCE OF TRAIN AND TRACKS 10.04 EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS *Case: 1. CLEMENTE BRIÑAS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. L-30309. November 25, 1983.] 10.05 NEGLIGENCE IN THE OPERATION OF THE TRAIN
TRANSPORTATION 10.06
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 7 of 8
PASSENGERS WHO FELL FROM THE TRAIN
*Case: 1. CLEMENTE BRIÑAS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. L-30309. November 25, 1983.] 10.07
PERSONS AND PROPERTIES RAN OVER BY TRAIN
10.08
DAMAGE TO PROPERTIES AND PERSONS NEAR RAILROAD TRACKS
11. RAILROAD CROSSING CASES 11.01 ABSENCE OF SAFETY DEVICES AND SIGNS *Case: 1. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and HONORIO CABARDO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC., respondents.[G.R. No. 70547. January 22, 1993.] 11.03 OBLIGATIONS OF THIRD PERSONS APPROACHING CROSSING *Case: 1. SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PEREÑA, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES NICOLAS and TERESITA L. ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012.] 11.04 NO IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE *Case: 1. CONSOLACION JUNIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant-appellee. [G.R. No. 37044. March 29, 1933.]
12. PASSENGER’S BAGGAGES 12.01 BAGGAGE DEFINED 12.02 CHECKED-IN BAGGAGE 12.03 HAND CARRIED LUGGAGE
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
CHAPTER 3 – OBLIGATIONS OF THE PASSENGER AND SHIPPER
1. DUTY TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE 1.01
NEGLIGENCE OF SHIPPER OR PASSENGER
2. DUTY TO DISCLOSE 2.01
DAMAGE CAUSED BY CARGOES
3. PAYMENT OF FREIGHT
3.01
WHO WILL PAY THE FREIGHT
3.02
TIME TO PAY THE FREIGHT
3.03
CARRIER’S LIE
4. TIME LOADING AND UNLOADING 4.01
DEMURRAGE
5. PERMITS
6. SHIPPER’S LOAD AND COUNT
7. DUTIES OF PASSENGER 7.01
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
7.02
AIR TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS
Page 8 of 8
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 1 of 8
*Case: PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, respondents. [G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993.] CHAPTER 2 – OBLIGATION OF THE COMMON CARRIER
1. BASIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE CARRIER
2. DUTY TO ACCEPT GOODS FOR TRANSPORT *Case: 1. F. C. FISHER, plaintiff, vs. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J. S. STANLEY as Acting Collector of Custom of the Philippine Islands, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, as Attorney General of the Philippine Islands, and W. H. BISHOP, as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respondents. [G.R. No. 8095. November 5, 1914 & March 31, 1915.] 2.01 VALID GROUNDS FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE *Cases: 1. F. C. FISHER, plaintiff, vs. YANGCO STEAMSHIP COMPANY, J. S. STANLEY, as Acting Collector of Custom of the Philippine Islands, IGNACIO VILLAMOR, as Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands, and W. H. BISHOP, as prosecuting attorney of the city of Manila, respondents. [G.R. No. 8095. November 5, 1914 & March 31, 1915.] 2. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.] 2.02 DUTIES TO SPECIAL CLASSES OF PASSENGERS
3. DUTY TO MAKE TIMELY DELIVERY OF THE GOODS *Case: 1. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.]
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 2 of 8
3.01 CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY *Case: 1. MAGELLAN MANUFACTURING MARKETING CORPORATION, * petitioner, vs. COURT OF A PPEALS, ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINES and F.E. ZUELLIG, INC.respondents. [G.R. No. 95529. August 22, 1991.]
4. PLACE OF DELIVERY
5. TO WHOM DELIVERED *Case: 1. JOSE MENDOZA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., defendant appellee. [G.R. No. L-3678. February 29, 1952.]
6. DELAY TO TRANSPORT PASSENGERS *Case: 1. TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ATTY. RENATO T. ARROYO, respondents. [G.R. No. 118126. March 4, 1996.] 7. DUTY TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE 7.01 CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS 7.02 RATIONALE 7.03 MEANING OF EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE *Case: 1. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, petitioner, vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, respo ndent. [G.R. No. L-18965. October 30, 1964.]
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 3 of 8
7.04 NON-DELEGABLE DUTY *Case: 1. WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. and ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 200289. November 25, 2013.] 7.05 PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE *Cases: 1. AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs. BONIFACIO H. GILLEGO, substituted by his surviving heirs represented by Dolores P. Gillego, respondent. [G.R. No. 165266. December 15, 2010.] 2. PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SORIAMONT STEAMSHIP AGENCIES AND KYOSEI KISEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA, respondents. [G.R. No. 101503. September 15, 1993.] 7.06 EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL 7.07 DURATION OF DUTY IN CARRIAGE OF GOODS *Cases: 1. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.] 2. WESTWIND SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., I NC. and ASIAN TERMINALS, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 200289. November 25, 2013.] 3. LU DO & LU YM CORPORATION, petitioner-defendant, vs. I. V. BINAMIRA, respondent plaintiff. [G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957.]
7.08 COMMENCEMENT OF DUTY IN CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS *Case: 1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. [G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003.]
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 4 of 8
7.09 HOW DUTY IS COMPLIED WITH 7.10 DUTY TO THIRD PERSONS *Case: 1. KAPALARAN BUS LINE, petitioner, vs. ANGEL CORONADO, LOPE GRAJERA, DIONISIO SHINYO, and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. 85331. August 25, 1989.] 7.11 EFFECT OF STIPULATION ON EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
8. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY SEA 8.01 SEAWORTHINESS *Case: 1. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. SULPICIO LINES, INC., GO SIOC SO, ENRIQUE S. GO, EUSEBIO S. GO, CARLOS S. GO, VICTORIANO S. GO, DOMINADOR S. GO, RICARDO S. GO, EDWARD S. GO, ARTURO S. GO, EDGAR S. GO, EDMUND S. GO, FRANCISCO SORIANO, VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION, TERESITA G. CAÑEZAL AND SOTERA E. CAÑEZAL, respondents. [G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999.]
8.02 MEANING OF SEAWORTHINESS 8.03 CARGOWORTHINESS 8.04 PROPER MANNING *Case: 1. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner, vs. SULPICIO LINES, INC., GO SIOC SO, ENRIQUE S. GO, EUSEBIO S. GO, CARLOS S. GO, VICTORIANO S. GO, DOMINADOR S. GO, RICARDO S. GO, EDWARD S. GO, ARTURO S. GO, EDGAR S. GO, EDMUND S. GO, FRANCISCO SORIANO, VECTOR SHIPPING CORPORATION, TERESITA G. CAÑEZAL AND SOTERA E. CAÑEZAL, respondents. [G.R. No. 131166. September 30, 1999.]
8.05 ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 5 of 8
8.06 OVERLOADING *Case: 1. NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON MIRANDA, SPS. RICARDO and VIRGINIA DE LA VICTORIA, respondents. [G.R. No. 110398. November 7, 1997.] 8.07 PROPER STORAGE *Cases: 1. PHILIPPINE HOME ASSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 106999. June 20, 1996.] 2. BELGIAN OVERSEAS CHARTERING AND SHIPPING N.V. and JARDINE DAVIES TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE FIRST INSURANCE CO., INC., respondent. [G.R. No. 143133. June 5, 2002.] 8.08 NEGLIGENCE OF CAPTAIN AND CREW 8.09 RULES ON PASSENGER SAFETY 8.10 DUTY TO TAKE PROPER ROUTE *Case: 1. MAGELLAN MANUFACTURING MARKETING CORPORATION, * petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ORIENT OVERSEAS CONTAINER LINES and F.E. ZUELLIG, INC. respondents.[G.R. No. 95529. August 22, 1991.] 8.12 DUTY TO INSPECT IN CARRIAGE BY SEA *Case: 1. ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., MARIA SALVACION SALUDO, LEOPOLDO G. SALUDO and SATURNINO G. SALUDO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondents. [G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992.] 8.13 INSURANCE
9. EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE IN CARRIAGE BY LAND 9.01 ROADWORTHINESS 9.02 TRAFFIC RULES
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 6 of 8
9.03 DILIGENCE IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION *Case: 1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. [G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003.] 9.04 DUTY TO INSPECT *Case: 1. HERMINIO L. NOCUM, plaintiffappellee, vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-23733. October 31, 1969.] 9.05 INSURANCE
10. CARRIAGE BY TRAIN 10.01 COMPETENT EMPLOYEES 10.02 THE PLATFORM MUST BE SAFE *Cases: 1. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY & RODOLFO ROMAN, petitioners, vs. MARJORIE NAVIDAD, Heirs of the Late NICANOR NAVIDAD & PRUDENT SECURITY AGENCY, respondents. [G.R. No. 145804. February 6, 2003.] 2. JOSE CANGCO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD CO., defendantappellee. [G.R. No. 12191. October 14, 1918.] 10.03 MAINTENANCE OF TRAIN AND TRACKS 10.04 EMBARKING AND DISEMBARKING PASSENGERS *Case: 1. CLEMENTE BRIÑAS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. L-30309. November 25, 1983.] 10.05 NEGLIGENCE IN THE OPERATION OF THE TRAIN
TRANSPORTATION 10.06
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
Page 7 of 8
PASSENGERS WHO FELL FROM THE TRAIN
*Case: 1. CLEMENTE BRIÑAS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. L-30309. November 25, 1983.] 10.07
PERSONS AND PROPERTIES RAN OVER BY TRAIN
10.08
DAMAGE TO PROPERTIES AND PERSONS NEAR RAILROAD TRACKS
11. RAILROAD CROSSING CASES 11.01 ABSENCE OF SAFETY DEVICES AND SIGNS *Case: 1. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and HONORIO CABARDO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and BALIWAG TRANSIT, INC., respondents.[G.R. No. 70547. January 22, 1993.] 11.03 OBLIGATIONS OF THIRD PERSONS APPROACHING CROSSING *Case: 1. SPOUSES TEODORO and NANETTE PEREÑA, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES NICOLAS and TERESITA L. ZARATE, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. 157917. August 29, 2012.] 11.04 NO IMPUTED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE *Case: 1. CONSOLACION JUNIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, defendant-appellee. [G.R. No. 37044. March 29, 1933.]
12. PASSENGER’S BAGGAGES 12.01 BAGGAGE DEFINED 12.02 CHECKED-IN BAGGAGE 12.03 HAND CARRIED LUGGAGE
TRANSPORTATION
FEB 15 ASSIGNMENT
CHAPTER 3 – OBLIGATIONS OF THE PASSENGER AND SHIPPER
1. DUTY TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE 1.01
NEGLIGENCE OF SHIPPER OR PASSENGER
2. DUTY TO DISCLOSE 2.01
DAMAGE CAUSED BY CARGOES
3. PAYMENT OF FREIGHT
3.01
WHO WILL PAY THE FREIGHT
3.02
TIME TO PAY THE FREIGHT
3.03
CARRIER’S LIE
4. TIME LOADING AND UNLOADING 4.01
DEMURRAGE
5. PERMITS
6. SHIPPER’S LOAD AND COUNT
7. DUTIES OF PASSENGER 7.01
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
7.02
AIR TRANSPORTATION OF PASSENGERS
Page 8 of 8
Related Documents
Transpo Feb 15 Assignment.pdf
May 2020 13
Feb.15
December 2019 15
Transpo Digests.docx
December 2019 18
Transpo .docx
April 2020 8
Salamevatan 109 15 Feb
November 2019 13
Bulletin Feb 15
December 2019 15More Documents from ""
Estate Of Ruiz V. Court Of Appeals.pdf
May 2020 18
Cathay Pacific Airways V. Sps. Vazquez.docx
May 2020 23
Aldanese V. Salutillo.docx
May 2020 18
Republic V. Court Of Appeals.pdf
May 2020 12
Transpo Feb 15 Assignment.pdf
May 2020 13